October 19, 2006

So what? He should be. He's clear that he likes bloggers who doggedly support the conservative cause. That's utterly unsurprising.

Here's Glenn's response, but, really, no response is needed. Glenn's blog is compulsively readable because it's not predictable and it's not partisan. I rarely look at the partisan blogs, which serve as gathering places and keep people enthused about predetermined goals. That's not how I want to spend my time. I'm looking for interesting things to read and talk about, not ways to keep excited about things I've already decided I want to be excited about.

57 comments:

The one point Rush makes that's a good one (Jeeze, I can't believe I'm complimenting the hypocritical Adulterer) -- Democrats aren't out there writing off races, even ones they've no hope of winning. It seems like they focus on the races they can win -- at least to hear it from the MSM.

Now, someone will invariably pipe up and say the MSM is biased. Well, Republicans leaders shouldn't be giving quotes about writing off races to a biased press. Don't give ammo to your enemy.

Instapundit used to be compulsively readable for me. Maybe I changed - not him - but I find his terse little quips and flip attitude about a lot of serious things deeply annoying these days. I know he's a serious person - and super smart - but that glib, ultra-condensed blog style he invented/refined now gets under my skin.

I don't mean it as a criticism really. It's a style thing. I used to read it, and now I find it quite off-putting.

Rush is only highlighting the debate about whether losing Congress will be good for Republicans in the long run. This debate is between republicans, neither Glenn or Rush believe that Democrats are a worthy alternative. However, Reynolds may be taking the position that a loss will sweep out the current leadership for a new more energetic leadership that will easily take back Congress in 2008. Rush disagrees with this position and argues that such a move is too risky.

I think if Reynolds were convinced that new Republican leadership would emerge with a Republicans retaining the House in 2006 his attitude would change. However there is no such assurance.

The Democratic party is a hapless organization with no ideas and no direction. If they win in 2006 it will be a temporary win based on Bush hatred - something they won't have in 2008.

A lot of pundits worry about Democratic investigations into the Bush Administration. I don't understand this worry. The Democrats will find nothing, because there is nothing (anything worthy gets leaked instantly). They will look like fools in the end.

I don't listen to Rush, so I haven't been following this other than the one handed clapping on instapundit (which I do read regularly). But I do agree with you that reading a wide variety of political points of view makes the most sense. I regularly read you as a good harbinger of center thought in a blue state that could be turned. Plus you occasionally have good legal commentry. Since I believe you could be persuaded to vote democratic rather easily, seeing how you respond to arguments is a good way to see how things play in the center.

What I can't stomach doing with regularity is reading the blogs on the left. There is to many assumed facts and positions that I don't have enough common ground to even take their view seriously.

Sloan, the problem with the Democratic party is that there is no leader. Or maybe there are too many. Anyway, If one true leader emerges, the ideas and direction will follow. I hope I don't sound like I'm looking for a Messiah :)

There is a big difference between saying that the GOP is going to lose, or explaining why you think the GOP is going to lose, or offering possible silver linings if they do lose, on the one hand, and saying that you want the GOP to lose, on the other hand. Limbaugh is laying into people in the latter group, and rightly so (while the arguments for taking the party to the woodshed are serious and important, I think in this case the proferred cure is worse than the disease), but I think Reynolds is basically in the former group. To borrow from Scalia's argot, if Limbaugh is proclaiming heresy and going after Reynolds as an exemplar of the people who want the GOP to lose, he's nailed the proclamation to the door of the wrong church.

MadisonMan said... "Sloan, the problem with the Democratic party is that there is no leader."

The lack of a leader is not, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, THE problem with the Democratic Party. It isn't even the MAIN problem with the Democratic Party. In fact, if anything qualifies for such a distinction, it would probably be the party's transparent disdain for the very country it aspires to lead, its seeming revulsion at this country's history, tradition and institutions whenever they cannot be used as tools to implement its agenda.

In fact, if anything qualifies for such a distinction, it would probably be the party's transparent disdain for the very country it aspires to lead, its seeming revulsion at this country's history, tradition and institutions whenever they cannot be used as tools to implement its agenda.

MadisonMan -That's true to some extent; no one will be more glad to see Frist gone than will I, and I wrote an op/ed recently saying that win or lose, the first thing the GOP needs to do in January is to eliminate the entire leadership team in the House, and preferably start by installing Mike Pence as Speaker. But in the bigger picture, I think the difference is that the GOP just has a few issues where I strongly disagree with them, but the Democratic Party is practically at war with this country and is literally at war with its Constitution. When you look at what they have done and when you look at what they would like to do, it is just really, really horrifying. There are quite a few things in the modern GOP platform that bother me, or that I disagree with, but when you look at the other party, and realize what the stakes are, you suck it up and deal with the few areas of disagreement. You don't jump into the fire just because you're not so keen on the brand of oil in the frying pan.

The Jerk - So you're saying...that...If Reynolds weren't being partisan Rush wouldn't be mad at him right now...? (The preview button is your friend).

The Republican Governors Association chairman -- 2008 White House hopeful Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) -- said today he believes the "House and the Senate look a little better" for the Republican Party than the governors races. "So the question is, will we lose six or eight governorships or even more? But we'll probably lose quite a few," said Romney on CNN.

"We'll certainly lose the lead," added Romney. When asked if there will be a majority of Democratic governors when the dust settles on election night, Romney responded, "Oh sure. Oh sure. I don't think there's anyone who has looked at the poll numbers who doesn't think that will happen."

And Limbaugh is worried about what a blogger said?

(Nah, I'm not whacking Romney. He's being realistic--but also demonstrating the "counting up losses" thing.

And an argument could be made that, in the mid to longer term, the shift in statehouse control is a bigger deal in some respects than shifts in current Congressional seats.)

The problem is that Glenn is really not the big one saying that maybe it would do the Republicans good to lose this time. If you want to see a lot of that, the NRO Corner has had a lot of that in the last week or so.

But rather, Reynolds is the bigger target. Most of what he has done here is to highlight what others have been saying.

I still like Instapundit a lot, and read it, like I read this blog, about a half a dozen times a day. The difference is that Reynolds really doesn't do much analysis there. Rather, he just links to it elsewhere (and does most of his analysis elsewhere too). And that is fine with me. Ann is one of the few solo bloggers I find who can do more in-depth stuff and not get stale (maybe because a lot of less deep stuff is thrown in).

I don't think that Rush is really losing much control here. The Dittoheads are still out there, as numerous as they ever were. Yes, bloggers have made an impact, but more, IMHO, on the MSM, than on conservative talk radio. One reason is that there is a lot of non-overlap. The other is that the two work together - often it is the bloggers who first find stuff, and it is fed to Rush, et al. for dissemination.

The most recent example of this is probably the Dingy Harry (Rush's name for the Sen. Minority Leader) scandals. Apparently, it was started with an AP story. And Rush mentioned it. But then, bloggers started digging in, developing more dirt, and a day or so later, it would show up on Rush's show (actually, usually the next day - he is pretty fast).

The other thing is that Rush has a pulpit that few on the right have access to. And he sees it as part of his duty right now to rally the troops for the upcoming election. Part of this is pushing back at defeatism, and the idea that it may be in the best interests of Republicans to lose this one is, in his view, defeatism (and I agree - the advantages of new leadership would be IMHO greatly outweighed by having Pelosi and Reid running Congress).

I meant what I wrote. If Instapundit was an independent, Rush Limbaugh would not expect him to toe the party line, and would not be outraged. The doctrinaire save their worst fury for perceived apostates. Thinking before posting is your friend.

First, I don't listen to Rush anymore (agree with MM assessment of Rush in the first post), but I do read Instapundit regularly. I think Simon hits the point pretty well in his first comment. I don't think Reynolds wants the baffoonery of the Democrats by proxy in wanting the Republicans to lose. Rather, he notes that Republicans shouldn't be surprised that they have alienated their base and other would-be supporters.

I don't agree with all of Glenn's examples, but they are still issues to question the GOP leaderships legacy. Frankly, I seem to recall Rush harping in much the same way along the lines of "the Republicans have won, but haven't acted like the party in charge" a few years back. Still, I'll give credit to Rush in sticking with his pronounced annoyance with centrist and libertarians (though he seems to live his life more like a libertarian than a conservative, especially religious conservative).

Bruce Hayden said . . . And he sees it as part of his duty right now to rally the troops for the upcoming election.

And it would be a lot easier to rally the troops if this pesky blogger wasn't out there reminding people that the Republicans have failed on their promises and turned their backs on principles. Just as it would have been a lot easier in 1994 for the 3 networks to get people to vote for the continuation and expansion of New Deal/Great Society programs if there wasn't this loudmouth named Limbaugh out there reminding people about corruption, taxes and national security.

Stever said . . . I recall his warning in 1992 that voting for Perot as a punishment to Bush41 was faulty thinking.

That proves that he is consistent but it sure doesn't prove he is right. Sure a vote for Perot gave us Clinton and the evils of a balanced budget and welfare reform (to name just two horrid things that resulted from Clinton). But a vote for Perot also gave us the first republican majority in the house in several decades.

You really take the cake. The only reason Clinton got a balanced budget and a welfare reform is because the republicans took over the Congress. After all he vetoed the welfare reform 2 times and only signed it so he could use it as a success in his 1996 election. The welfare reform would never have happened if the Democrats had won the House in 1994.

But it's not classy to shout down or talk over a law professor, which is what Limbaugh typically does to callers he disagrees with. In fact, that's what he does to people he agrees with!

You must not listen to Limbaugh's show. He's more polite to his callers than any other political radio show host on the air. He's especially polite to his liberal callers. He often keeps them on for extended lengths of time for discussion. His show is one of the very few where someone can call in and not be hung up on after making one comment--you're actually allowed to respond.

If Instapundit was an independent, Rush Limbaugh would not expect him to toe the party line, and would not be outraged. The doctrinaire save their worst fury for perceived apostates.

The real problem is, of course, that Limbaugh, like yourself, has no familiarity with Instapundit. That is why he thought of Instapundit as a partisan Republican blog -- a mistake no regular reader could possibly make. So, like yourself, he's making a fool out of himself, talking about Reynolds straying from a fold he was never inside of to begin with.

Reynolds opposes the social conservative agenda, the war on drugs, the Republican Congress' spendthrift ways, most of the anti-immigration agenda, and the Bush Administration's support of torture and the detention of American citizens. Anyone who looks at that and says "partisan Republican!" has his head up his ass.

You obviously don't know what the term "partisan" means. A partisan is a person who, like yourself, needs only to know the political parties of the parties involved in a dispute in order to decide which side is in the right.

Reynolds simply views the Republicans as better than the Democrats because the Republicans advocate more positions he supports than the Democrats do. That's not a partisan -- that's a voter.

Reynolds simply views the Republicans as better than the Democrats because the Republicans advocate more positions he supports than the Democrats do.

Fancy that! So Democrats identify first and foremost with their party label, while Republicans just happened upon the GOP in their personal, nonpartisan quest for truth and justice? I don't know... sounds pretty convenient.

"the Democratic Party is practically at war with this country and is literally at war with its Constitution"

Wow, Simon. That's some mighty fine projection you've got going on there: Who just banned habeas corpus again? Who just legalized torture? Which party's president has blown the record for signing statements out of the water? And that's with a Republican-controlled Congress.

How is it exactly the Democrats are "literally" warring with the Constitution?

So Democrats identify first and foremost with their party label, while Republicans just happened upon the GOP in their personal, nonpartisan quest for truth and justice?

Hyperbole aside, I would say that yes, identity politics are more integral to the Democrat side of things where ideas often seem less important than being on the right team. I think that's why you find more personal exoriation on the Left than on the Right.

dick said... The only reason Clinton got a balanced budget and a welfare reform is because the republicans took over the Congress. After all he vetoed the welfare reform 2 times . . . The welfare reform would never have happened if the Democrats had won the House in 1994.

I completely agree. My point was the Defeat of GHWB in 1992 (by voting for Perot) was good for Republicans. And the Republicans wouldn't have won the House in 1994 without Clinton.

You seem to think it is a bad thing to exercise a veto. Perhaps if you are this President and you agree to every last bit of pork and patronage so long as the Congress cedes you what you really want, the veto is unneccessary. For every other President (including Reagan) it has proved to be a useful tool. IF the Dems were to win the House in November, I suspect the President will change his view on how the veto should be used.

No one thinks of themselves as "partisan," they just think of themselves as right.

Lotsa folks think both. Few people operate on the basis that they're wrong, of course, but a lot of people's rightness is about belonging to the "right side". In other words, their partisan-ness is closely related to their concept of their own correctness.

You can break bloggers down along these two axes, and they wouldn't come out the same at all. For example, Kos has said that his side winning is all that matters. Presumably, people like this are of the belief that they just need to get the power first, then they'll use it right-ly.

Ace of Spades, on the other hand, seems to be uneasy with his partisanship (he's a 9/11 Rep, I think). At one point, I think he thought what a number of Reps thought: That the Reps losing would serve as an important lesson. But now he's rallying his readers to vote for a variety of reasons, which might be crudely broken down to "the lesser of two evils". He's interesting because he seems to be consciously acknowledging a certain value in partisanship, while not being certain as to his own rightness.

On the third hand, like most libertarian-minded types, Reynolds has the social liberal philosophy on the one hand and the small-government philosophy on the other. He'll support whoever matches his ideas at the moment. In essence, his sense of rightness is probably tied up with his NON-partisan-ness.

Left-wing partisans have been labeling him a partisan hack because he's relatively hawkish and anti-Bush strictly on a policy level (he likes tax cuts but not the big government spending).

Right-wing partisans now label him a partisan hack (on the other side, natch) because he's reported on the likelihood of Rep losses, ignoring the fact that he's also put up lots of links to contradictory analyses.

It should be noted, finally, that there are LOTS of people who are not partisan and who also don't view themselves as right. But these people tend to blog more about their battles with depression.

I listen to his show...about once a month. If he's politer than other hosts, they must be horrors.

From what I've heard, Limbaugh lets callers speak for about 20 seconds, half of which is "double mega Davenport dittoes!" Then he pontificates for about 5 minutes, during which time the caller may get to mutter a bit. In fairness, I have heard him converse meaningfully with some.

Of course, it is all show biz. All callers are pre-screened. He knows what they want to talk about before they go on. Too much risk of someone other than the host going buck-wild crazy on the air. I mean, geez, half the time, Limbaugh sounds like he's eating the furniture he so mad.

The point remains--If he's got a beef with somebody, like Prof. Reynolds, debate him! (Same goes for the Prof.--he should have talkbacks on his blog.)

That Reynolds holds some opinions which are unorthodox for Republicans (does hating pork honestly count?) does not make him non-Republican

He does not belong to the Republican party. That makes him a non-Republican.

That he also is directly at odds with much of the Republican Party platform makes him, in addition to a non-Republican, an unenthusiastic supporter of the Republican Party, and hence no partisan.

Yes, I realize that you categorize everyone who does not burn with the desire to fellate the nearest available Democratic Party official as "a Republican partisan", but back here on planet Earth Reynolds is just a typical libertarian hawk, an ally of Republicans only inasmuch as Republicans advocate libertarian and hawkish positions.

So Democrats identify first and foremost with their party label, while Republicans just happened upon the GOP in their personal

No, dumbass -- Republicans *also* identify first and foremost with their party label. Which is one of the many reasons why calling Reynolds a partisan Republican is ignorant.

Hyperbole aside, I would say that yes, identity politics are more integral to the Democrat side of things where ideas often seem less important than being on the right team.

This is parody, right? I could tell because you used Democrat as an adjective.

Revenant,

I read Instapundit regularly, and have since 2000. You have no idea what I do and don't read. I suggest you take your own advice and avoid spouting off about things of which you are ignorant. Better to keep quiet and be though a fool...I'm sure you've heard the adage. I'm well aware of which issues Reynolds pays occasional lip service to before he finds another right-wing kook to link approvingly or writes a post asserting that Democrats identify with Ward Churchill.

Russell,

I'm not familiar with Henry Raddick, but a cursory review of his reviews indicates some stylistic similarities. I doubt Hutton would ever admit it though.

You must have caught him at some anomalous times. He's actually pretty good natured and humorous

I haven't listened to Limbaugh in 13 years, and when I did it wasn't really by choice -- but I don't recall him being that way. When liberal callers rang him up there would be a "caller abortion", with the sound of a vaccuum cleaner and a woman screaming. He probably mellowed over the years, but he *used* to be pretty outrageous in his treatment of people who disagreed with him.

I read Instapundit regularly, and have since 2000. You have no idea what I do and don't read.

Oh, I have a definite idea that the above claim was a flat-out lie -- Reynolds launched Instapundit in August, 2001.

Add in the fact that your description of his blogging bears no resemblance to the reality and the fact that his pre-9/11 readership was virtually nonexistant, and, well -- sorry, you're busted. Try a different lie.

The only reason Clinton got a balanced budget and a welfare reform is because the republicans took over the Congress. After all he vetoed the welfare reform 2 times and only signed it so he could use it as a success in his 1996 election. The welfare reform would never have happened if the Democrats had won the House in 1994.

Which can be a good argument for how a Democratic majority in the legislative branch may salvage bush's legacy. The government was set up to be a two-party system. Compromise was designed in.

Oh, I have a definite idea that the above claim was a flat-out lie -- Reynolds launched Instapundit in August, 2001.

Oooo! You caught a typo! Congrats!

Add in the fact that your description of his blogging bears no resemblance to the reality

Nope. It bears every resemblance to the reality. He's not as hackish as Hugh Hewitt or Powerline, more like the NRO crowd. But I see you didn't address my actual examples of his partisan hackery, preferring to let your awesome typo catch do your work for you. I'll take that as a tacit concession of defeat.

Instapundit is so obviously partisan, although he tries to pretend he's not. He doesn't fool me.

The only major blogs I actually read are Althouse, Sullivan, and Washington Monthly, although I do check in on the lefty and righty blogs just to get a laugh. In my opinion, the ones on the right are all group think. I actually think you'll get more independent thought on the blogs from the left. There is zero tolerance for those who stray from the agenda on the right. Just look what they did to Sullivan when he went off the reservation. And look at what Limbaugh is doing to Instapundit now.

Wait until you see what happens when the Republicans lose big time. The right has absolutely no idea what's about to hit them in November. They are utterly clueless. Especially if you read their blogs immediately after the 2004 elections when they basically stated that due to demographic trends it would be impossible for them to lose a Presidential or Congressional election for the next 40 years. Really - they are super dumb if they really believed that.

Then again - they also think "staying the course" in Iraq is a real plan for the War, so what do you expect.

No, I caught a lie. "2000" is not a typo of "2001" -- the 0 and 1 keys are nowhere near one another. Nor is it credible that you would have accidentally thought that a warblog -- which is what all but the unread first few weeks of Instapundit have been -- started a year before 9/11.

So, sorry -- like I said, you're busted. It is never a smart idea to try to bullshit your way through an argument by feigning expertise in something you know nothing about.

Nope. It bears every resemblance to the reality. He's not as hackish as Hugh Hewitt or Powerline, more like the NRO crowd.

Please. You've already been exposed as a liar -- try no to convince everyone who actually *has* read the blog that you're an illiterate fool, too.

In case you haven't noticed, Rush is a little like O'Reilley. They both tend to show disdain towards bloggers especialy O'Reiley who believes the internets are out of control..."My god - anyone can say anything".

No, I caught a lie. "2000" is not a typo of "2001" -- the 0 and 1 keys are nowhere near one another.

And yet it remains possible to carelessly hit an extra "0" and move on without thinking about it. Crazy, crazy world. And if I was going to lie, why would I bother to move it back to 2000 when 2001 would be just as good? Your theory makes no sense, detective. You're obviously unable to debate on the merits, but going on the offense with these implausible theories really isn't the way to go.

Please. You've already been exposed as a liar

Well, you've been exposed as an absolute idiot, so I guess we're even.

I used to think that Althouse, the Perfesser, and other conservatives denied their orientation because they were ashamed of it, but time has proven that they are strangers to shame. My current operating analysis is that they're attempting to normalize wing-nuttery -- that is, if a popular writer can be identified as "not partisan" though 95% of what he professes is right-wing boilerplate, folks who are new in town may take that to mean that ordinary, untainted-by-politics people are supposed to believe exactly what right-wing political operatives believe.